BlogHer - Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism, Or One Feminist's Impressions - Comments

Interesting

hecticmom — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:28:37 -0500

I hesitate to even respond and know I shouldn't - but I simply can't help myself.

Just some follow up personal experiences. I actually am a feminist - know lots of feminists, and for everyone I deal with we're actually quite normal.

I'm happily married, and I have no intention of either divorcing and/or taking all of my husbands money. (However, we make approximately the same salary so, he would be just as likely to take my money I suppose.) I have no plans for a divorce - but he's a really good guy and I would definately want him to spend time with the kids.

We live in CA and here it's a state where both parents get custody in the case of a divorce. Period. I actually have a friend who is in a very bad and emotionally abusive marriage but will not leave her husband because she doesn't want him to get unsupervised time with their daughter. Currently, she can keep her daughter away from him.

All feminists are not evil man-hating witches. Some of us just want equal pay for equal work. A harassment free workplace. And choices - like the right to vote (which is still very new. African American's were able to vote before women were. Without feminists you would not have the ability to vote in this next election. ) The right to work outside the home. The right to be in charge of our own bodies.

hecticmomundone

Back at ya

Jill Miller Zimon — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:02:16 -0500

I've not taken a position on your issues so there isn't anything to assert from my end.

Again - good luck achieving whatever goal it is you've tried to achieve.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Vote for ~~Jill~~ Your Favorite Female Blogger!

Men blogging

Denise — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:42:04 -0500

Men are actually welcome to become members and blog at BlogHer.com. We've had a few of them give it a run from time to time. So please, if you know of any men who'd like to give it a go - invite them.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Nice try.

KellyMac — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:39:53 -0500

If I came here to provoke, Jill, you would be provoked. As it stands, I have provided cites to back up my assertions. As it stands, you have provided nothing.

I am taking action based on my beliefs, including posting here at blogher. I can't help but wonder every time I visit this site, though, what would happen if there were a site open only to men for blogging? Wouldn't that be sexist?

"KellyMac" didn't come here

Jill Miller Zimon — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:19:30 -0500

"KellyMac" didn't come here looking for someone to counter her argument and I'm not here to do that. She came here to provoke. I remain unprovoked and unpersuaded. I critiqued her evidence as stale and irrelevant. That's my opinion of the material she provided which she obviously buys into it.

As I said, if it works for her, best of luck. I hope she takes action based on her beliefs.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Vote for ~~Jill~~ Your Favorite Female Blogger!

What you just did

tainoarawak — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:50:26 -0500

...is called a cop-out. The very nature of what she is doing is debate and open-mindedness. She called you up on your request with credible sources. She is willing to see your evidence, but you won't do what you asked her to do.

What you are saying to her applies to you not her--this is called projection. Copping out and projection when you want to shut down someone who disagrees with you in spite of sound argument and evidence. That is quite revealing.

Hope that works for you.

Some confusion

Yvette Perry — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:40:50 -0500

KellyMac, I share some people's confusion about what the point is of your post. I sense from the post and your subsequent comments that there are some personal experiences driving your argument. With all respect, maybe your points would have been clearer had you based your post on these instead of on the article you came across.

Having said that, if what you are saying is that there is a disconnect between femisism as a means of analyzing social phenomena and some family phenomena feminists choose (and do not choose) to tackle, then I agree with you. I think there is more than enough within feminism to examine custody arrangements, spousal/child support awards, and wider economic issues as they may negatively (perhaps inadvertantly) impact men.

I can't think of anyone off hand, but I am sure there must be some feminist scholars who have done just this. Surely it could be a bigger topic in feminist scholarship, especially in the analyses of working and lower income families.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

.....

lilmommythatcould — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:25:07 -0500

Mothers are the primary care-givers in the home. On a day to day basis they provide the basic needs for their children and when that is the case it goes without saying they would be the ones to have custody.

" And how many men don't fight because they don't have the resources ..."

My father, after my parents divorced 25 years ago, worked at a pizza place. He could of easily said he didn't have the resources, financial etc. The resources were there for him, 25 years ago he found them. He didn't have an easy time at it, my mom wasn't that nice. He did what he had to...no excuses.

I agree with you about the children

KellyMac — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:24:48 -0500

I admit I threw that blaming the victim thing in there because I let my irritation get to me, and I have heard it so much.

Children really are the biggest losers in divorce, except in those rare cases when their safety is ensured by it, and even then they've come from a bad thing.

My parents didn't divorce until I was 35, and I'm still married, so custody isn't an issue that has affected my personal life. I can only base my opinions on what I observe.

Your father is one of the lucky ones, and your mother is maybe a decent person who didn't fight him too hard. I'm sincere when I say I'm glad it worked out for you.

I have a different perspective than maybe most members of this site. I've spent a lot of time talking to men about this stuff, and I admit I'm biased.

I swear I'm not trying to troll.

Just think about something. How often do you hear about a mother fighting for custody, or even being in a position where she has to? And how many men don't fight because they don't have the resources and they know the deck is stacked against them?

I know there are bad men, and they shouldn't have access to their kids or their ex'es or anyone else, for that matter. I just think justice should be blind, and from what I've seen, it really isn't.

one more thing

lilmommythatcould — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:06:30 -0500

I have lived it- I try not to get personal but my parents are divorced- soul custody did go to my mom but my dad fought. He went back to court- the courts saw his desire for more visits and was given it. I have experieced also men who refuse to go to the courts are willing to except their fate, willing to sit playing victim, their unwillingness is their own downfall. If a father show an interest more then likely he will be given more time. I refuse to accept the fact that you want woman to stop playing victim but you are more then willing to allow men to play victim. In the end the only victim in your tragedy is the childre of divorce-

Nope

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:34:45 -0500

You aren't interested in debate nor are you open-minded. You base your opinion and conclusions on stale info.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and to be as passionate about it as they like.

I have a right to disagree and challenge. You can respond as you prefer.

Good luck to you. There are many more successful ways for achieving healthy environments for men women and children than the approach you take. But you don't seem interested in anything other than your view.

Hope that works out for you.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Vote for ~~Jill~~ Your Favorite Female Blogger!

NO WAY

lilmommythatcould — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:05:12 -0500

I have a feeling you are just trying to get a rise out of people- you want women to stop playing the victim but, as you stated above, it is okay men can play the victim card! Get real! This is not worth my time.

What would you suggest they do?

KellyMac — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:32:13 -0500

The court of public opinion is not on their side. Think for a minute what it would be like to be prevented from seeing your children. Wouldn't it feel like you were dying inside?

You're blaming the victim here.

I can't say I'm surprised

KellyMac — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:25:00 -0500

at your reply. But I notice that you didn't dispute any of it. Would you care to correct me with some more up-to-date cites?

Spin doctor

lilmommythatcould — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:22:48 -0500

Yes it is sad that alot of horrible things happen in fatherless homes- but did it ever cross your anti-feminist ideology that the father plays some part of a role in a fatherless home. I can spin your information and say "shame on the fathers for giving up not being there for there kids." You might question those dads, did they try hard to maintain a relationship- did they go back to court to win more time with their children? It is all how you spin it- try spinning the other way you might be suprised!

Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism, Or One Feminist's Impressions

KellyMac — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:58:06 -0500

I came across this article the other day, and it struck me as a good example of the disconnect between feminist ideology and the reality of life in the Western world. I know such examples are everywhere, but this one managed to cram so many (deliberate) misconceptions into one article, I thought it would be convenient to address them all at once. Call me lazy… The article is called “Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism”, and it was written by one Suzanne MacNevin in January 2008. The title implies a bit broader scope than it covers, but still it hits on quite a few beliefs, or should I say, feminist interpretations of the beliefs of anti-feminists, and as such is worth addressing:

Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism

By Suzanne MacNevin - January 2008. There is a growing plethora of anti-feminist websites out there and there is noticable trends amongst the topics discussed amongst such websites. One of the leading criticisms is that feminists are out to get pregnant and get alimony/child support payments from their deadbeat dads/husbands.

I don’t think it’s that they’re out to get pregnant, it’s that they have nothing to lose and much to gain financially by filing for divorce when they get tired of their husbands. I’m not sure why you’re labeling the men as “deadbeat dads” when you you haven’t gotten to the divorce part yet, but your bias is clearly showing.

Which leads me to one conclusion: The primary driving force behind such websites are “Deadbeat Dads” who sometimes write under the guise of a female name.

I can see how someone with your attitude could be led to such a conclusion, but it’s hardly the only possible one. It isn’t even a very likely one. By the way, I’m not a Deadbeat Dad writing under the guise of a female name. I’m a woman who uses her powers of observation and an open mind to see what’s going on around me. I don’t write because I’m disgruntled about a child support arrangement; I write because I can’t stand injustice or double standards, both of which are rampant against men, and especially fathers, in Western society.

The websites typically include statements like the following:

“Women will use sex and pregnancy to snare a man’s wallet.”

“Marriage is a trap designed to enslave men.”

“Divorced women take their ex-husbands for every penny.”

“Women make men pay child alimony for children they didn’t even father.”

“Feminists use divorce to take away a man’s children and his money.”

“Women falsely accuse men of cheating and then take their bank accounts.”

“Bachelorism is the only way to fight feminism.”

You get the general idea. Basically these are men who are complaining about spousal/child support and divorce settlements. The last statement about bachelorism is essential to the “anti-feminist philosophy” that all women are money-grubbers and that you mustn’t commit to a relationship because she will wipe out your bank account.

Perhaps for some men this might be good advice. Seriously. If the men in question actually believe these kind of bullshit statements there isn’t a lot we women can do to change their minds. They have essentially become brainwashed by the philosophy of bachelorism and thus can’t commit to a relationship (and likewise would probably make horrible parents and adulterous husbands).

Every one of those statements is based on fact. They don’t say “all women”, or “every woman”, they say “woman”. It’s like when you say “Deatbeat Dads” when referring to divorced fathers. I’m sure you don’t mean every divorced father is a deadbeat, right? Or do you?

Unfortunately, Suzanne, you don’t get the general idea. What you see as fathers refusing to take responsibility and spreading misogyny while they’re at it, is in fact men who have been through the wringer warning men who haven’t. The sad thing is that men still innately love women, and that’s why we have an epidemic of men living in poverty and unable to see their children. Because the warnings are not heeded.

They’re not “brainwashed by the philosophy of bachelorism”; they’re learning some self-preservation skills.

So why bother trying to change their opinion? Well, one can hope, but if they aren’t smart enough to figure out the flawed logic of bachelorism they are much more likely to be proponents of it than possible converts to equality.

So far, Suzanne, I haven’t seen any proof of flawed logic on their part. Calling the statements “bullshit”, and slamming men who don’t want to be victims as “horrible parents and adulterous husbands” is pure opinion on your part. Your logic isn’t even flawed; it just hasn’t been evidenced to this point.

After all bachelorism does offer a lot of tantalizing prospects for men:

•             No need to commit to a relationship.

•             No need to marry.

•             He can sleep with many different women.

•             He can have group sex.

•             He doesn’t have to worry about raising children

•             He doesn’t have to worry about financially supporting children and/or wife.

•             More free time due to complete lack of family responsibilities.

•             Able to travel more with less responsibilities.

•             Able to live the wild lifestyle of a bachelor.

This makes me the saddest of anything you’ve written so far. If you had actually had a conversation with the men you find on anti-feminist sites, with the possible exception of the radical ones, you would know that men in general would like nothing more in this world than to settle down with one woman for life, raise their children, and make sure everyone is taken care of. They are operating out of self-defense.

Theoretically he also gains more financial security and less stress, although the reverse can be easily argued if the woman also works and children provide a source of happiness and stress relief.

Actually, he does gain more financial security and less stress, as if he is married and a father, he knows that in the event of divorce, the majority of which are initiated by the woman, he has a snowball’s chance in hell of gaining even equal custody, much less unlimited access to his own children. In addition, all she has to do is say, “I’m afraid of him”, and BAM instant restraining order, and he doesn’t see them at all.

Even if she doesn’t do that, her word will be taken over his in court, and child support will be ordered, very often in an amount more than he can afford and also have a roof over his head. She can be the best wife and mother in the world, it doesn’t change the fact that she can play those cards at any time. Again, it’s not that men hate women. They just know what a chancy proposition it is to marry one and/or make babies.

There are after all a fair number of men out there who due to their personal beliefs do not make ideal husbands or fathers. Infidelity and cheating being a regular occurrence, plus some men may simply may not be cut out to handle to the trials and tribulations of raising a family. I would argue therefore that these “below par” men simply aren’t ready (and may never be ready) to commit to either the faithfulness or the responsibilities required of marriage and children.

Would you mind proving that? What is “a fair number”? What “personal beliefs” are you talking about? Is this more of your flawless logic?

But with time that can change. As men get older they will undoubtably notice the loneliness and feel like they are missing out on something. They won’t be able to party like they once did and will be lonely on Christmas and Valentines. Presumably time will eventually mellow these men out, hopefully within time for them to still raise a meaningful family.

Actually, men are already lonely. They know they are missing out on something. They just can’t believe, given our current culture, that that “something” is even possible. I have to agree with them that it occurs only rarely. The ones who don’t realize they’re missing out are the women who are too busy with social lives and careers to commit to loving and supporting one man, warts and all.

Sadly one of the fundamental beliefs of bachelorism is that women are to blame for divorce. I disagree.

You can disagree all you want. Women instigate the majority of divorces. Numbers don’t lie.

I think both sexes are to blame for the bad choices that led to their marriage in the first place. People rush into marriage way too easily. It is much wiser in my opinion to give the relationship time and then when they are more certain of their compatibility and ability to commit then they should consider marriage.

Some of the primary causes of divorce is sexual unhappiness, infidelity, money, stress and lack of trust/communication. Those problems lead to the breakdown of the marriage and either sex can be to blame. Money is an important part of this. Men can be rather sensitive about money and paying spousal/child support to these men seems wildly unfair. Why should they have to pay for children they themselves didn’t give birth to?

This is a completely unfair, ridiculous, bigoted, and offensive statement. It has nothing at all to do with who carried the child. Did you ever stop to consider that without his sperm, there would be no child?? Did you ever stop to consider that fathers love their children, and would do anything for them? Did you ever stop to consider that it’s not the child support they object to, but the crippling amount of it? Or the fact that she’s using that money - supposedly earmarked “for the children”, to get her nails done? Or that they’re in agony because they miss their children? What about the ones whose children are turned against them by their mothers? You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for making such a statement. If you were near me, I’d wash your mouth out with soap.

Because they still made the choice to have sex and make a child. That seemingly small and insignificant act is nevertheless the life giving act of creation and gives the woman two choices: Abortion or a lifetime commitment to raise a child, including all of its financial burdens.

True. They didn’t choose to be nothing but a walking wallet. Financial burdens??? You have got to be kidding me. Trust me, hon, the single mom in the Western world will never go hungry.

If the couple in question is married it is already presumed that their marriage includes the goal of making babies and having children. The male is automatically financially responsible for the welfare of the child (and therefore also to the mother who may have to quit work or cutback her workload in order to properly take care of the child).

The idea behind marriage is to partner through the rest of their lives. Children are not part of the marriage equation. If they both decide they want children, then fine. If he doesn’t want them, and she does, so she lies about the birth control and conceives, why in hell should he have to pay for her choice? The law says he does have to pay, though. That’s just one more reason men have to distrust women. Congratulations.

If they are not married the legal matter varies from country to country, but the laws usually expect the male to assume some part of the financial burden. Is it fair for men to be forced to assume financial responsibility for their “wild oats”? Absolutely. Men don’t take this matter seriously enough. They think they can sleep with whomever they want without any consequences but in this world of STDs, HIV/AIDS and pregnancy that is simply not true.

True that. And in this age of sexual freedom, women face that same choice. What if he wants the child, and she doesn’t? Too bad, so sad, should have been born a woman. Do you honestly not see the double standard? And please don’t tell me how hard it is on a woman’s body to carry and birth a child. Please. That is what our bodies are made to do. If she doesn’t want it, she should give it to the dad and pay child support until the child is 18 or out of college. If she didn’t want to get pregnant, maybe she shouldn’t have spread her legs, or forgotten to take her pills last week, eh, Suzanne?

I’m not one to point to the Bible as a source of wisdom, but there is a reason why adultery and sex before marriage is frowned upon. In ancient times if a young woman lost her virginity before marriage (or if her husband abandons her and runs off) she would end up impoverishing her parents with an extra mouth to feed. If the family was farmers they might not mind so much so long as food is plentiful and they need an extra person to help with the work. But if not that “bastard baby” could cause financial and social problems.

That’s funny. My understanding is that if she lost her virginity, he married and supported her. Is this some new feminist interpretation of the Bible?

The same is true today. We look up to women who manage to make it on their own, but it is a difficult task and well-nigh impossible without the aid of family, friends, husband and/or government support. Why should the government (and thus taxpayers) be forced to support the mother and child when it was partially the fault of the father who sired the child? How fair is that for society to end up paying for one man’s sexual urges and inability to stop spreading his seed around?

Excuse me? What happened to the miracle of pregnancy and birth giving her all the rights? How is this all of a sudden all the man’s doing? You have a shifting sense of reality. Real life doesn’t change according to your moods. If it was true 3 paragraphs ago, it’s true now. If it’s not true now, then it wasn’t true before. Your logic is seriously flawed.

And if society or the deadbeat father doesn’t pay up what is the social effect of having hundreds or thousands of women impoverished and struggling to feed and clothe these children? No, I am sorry dear bachelors. You need to own up to your responsibilities and stop blaming feminists for what is primarily a societal matter and only a feminist matter due to context of divorce and motherhood.

Divorce and modern motherhood are exactly what it IS about, Suzanne. Men don’t have a say in these matters. Only women do, legally. I grant you, there is the occasional scrupulous woman who treats her man fairly, but frankly most women in the West wouldn’t know “fair” if it bit them on the ass.

Without child and spousal support a good portion of our economy would be suffering under the weight of sexual and economic repression. In turn our society would also feel a huge limit on sexual freedom.

Spousal support? If it exists at all, it should last only a year AT THE MOST until the mother can get on her feet, and that’s only if she has no education or work experience. Better yet, let the children go to the parent best able to support them. Having breasts and ovaries does not by any means make someone a better parent. In fact, most cases of abuse and murder of one’s own children are committed by the mother. I’m sure you’ll find a way to blame a man for that one, also.

As for limiting sexual freedom, you say that like it’s a bad thing. Sex is meant to be so much more than meaningless rutting. Thank you, feminism, for turning it into no more than dogs mating on the back porch.

Men should think twice about their sexual freedom and how they take it for granted. Don’t abuse it. Wear a condom if you’re not ready to have a child.

Men get this. That’s why they’re not marrying. I’m thinking maybe women could benefit from taking your advice, though.

And don’t blame feminism if your relationship or marriage goes sour. You made your decisions and you have to live with the consequences. Blaming women and being a deadbeat dad isn’t going to help anything but your own sense of selfishness.

We didn’t have an epidemic of single mothers before feminism. Coincidence? You tell me.